Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].


Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

Here, as in other parts of the Bill, we are concerned about the breadth of the powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State. It will perhaps benefit the Committee if I speak to Amendments 85 and 85A as well as to Amendment 84 in order to speed matters. Clause 39(2), for example, gives remarkable and unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State. It says nothing about whether or not the Secretary of State can increase or reduce the powers given. The Delegated Powers Committee says of Clause 39(2) that it inserts a new section into the British Nationality Act 1981, ""under which regulations may be made which amend the length of the qualifying time period—both the default qualifying period, and the period by which it may be reduced for those who meet the activity condition"." As drafted, this clause also allows the Secretary of State to increase the period allowed. That seems to us to be far too flexible and the sort of thing that needs therefore to be constrained. The merit in Amendment 85A is that it adds a further degree of advice and therefore an extra degree of autonomy in enabling the Secretary of State to consider whether completed activities are of benefit to the individual. We are immensely concerned by the breadth of powers given to central government in this Bill, as in so many other Bills that come before the House. The idea that the Secretary of State will be able to determine whether the Women’s Institute in Upper Medlicott or wherever is a viable body for which a young Muslim woman can volunteer stretches the imagination. My daughter is a civil servant and I recognise that civil servants in London are tremendously efficient and far-sighted, but their ability to check on what is happening in Upper Wharfedale, Upper Wensleydale or wherever is relatively limited. The purpose of Amendments 84, 85 and 85A, therefore, is in different ways to add brakes on the autonomy of the Secretary of State in determining the circumstances under which these things are pursued. I have to say more strongly that, if the Government are not able to bring back a more restrictive version of page 32, line 3, many of us will be strongly motivated to vote against that at Report. As Amendment 84 suggests, we are extremely unhappy with the laxity of flexibility given to the Secretary of State by the whole of this section. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c588-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Criminal records Civil partnerships Asylum Detainees Armed forces British nationality Citizenship Borders Women Employment Equality Fees and charges Families Further education Immigration controls Domestic abuse Undocumented migrants Hong Kong Homelessness Discrimination Higher education Ireland (island) English language Forced marriage Marriage Parents Public service Vetting Refugees Trade unions Voluntary work British national (overseas) Common travel area British students abroad
Legislation
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk